Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 430 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 434.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Bacon (Fitzpatrick)

Baird (Bucshon)

Bass (Brownley)

Cleaver (Butterfield)

Crist (Soto)

Cuellar (Veasey)

DeFazio (Brown (MD))

Demings (Soto)

Dunn (Wilson (SC))

Fulcher (Johnson (OH))

Gallego (Torres (CA))

Gomez (Beyer)

Green (TX) (Butterfield)

Guthrie (Barr)

Hagedorn (Carl)

Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))

Kahele (Jeffries)

Kim (CA) (McCaul)

Lawrence (Stevens)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

Lesko (Miller (WV))

Meeks (Jeffries)

McHenry (Bucshon)

Moore (UT) (Carl)

Pascrell (Pallone)

Payne (Pallone)

Rush (Quigley)

Sires (Pallone)

Smith (WA) (Beyer)

Swalwell (Brownley)

Underwood (Casten)

Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4256--Investing in Main Street Act of 2021, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on Rollcall No. 349.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Axne (Spanberger)

Barragan (Gallego)

Bowman (Tlaib)

Brown (Mfume)

Cardenas (Gomez)

Cohen (Beyer)

Crist (Castor (FL))

Davids (KS) (Cleaver)

DeFazio (Blumenauer)

Deutch (Rice (NY))

Doggett (Raskin)

Fletcher (Escobar)

Gaetz (Greene (GA))

Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez)

Hagedorn (Carl)

Kirkpatrick (Stanton)

Larsen (WA) (Connolly)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

Meng (Jeffries)

Morelle (Rice (NY))

Norcross (Pallone)

Ocasio-Cortez (Garcia (IL))

Palazzo (Fleischmann)

Payne (Pallone)

Pingree (Kuster)

Rush (Underwood)

Schiff (Thompson (CA))

Sires (Pallone)

Smucker (Joyce (PA))

Speier (Scanlon)

Steube (Franklin, C. Scott)

Strickland (Jeffries)

Swalwell (Gomez)

Thompson (MS) (Butterfield)

Thompson (PA)

(Reschenthaler)

Titus (Connolly)

Trone (Beyer)

Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 316.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Barragan (Beyer)

Cartwright (Doyle, Michael F.)

Casten (Foster)

Cooper (Clark (MA))

Costa (Cuellar)

DeFazio (Brown)

DeSaulnier (Beyer)

DesJarlais (Fleischmann)

Fallon (Nehls)

Garcia (TX) (Escobar)

Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))

Keating (Clark (MA))

Kind (Connolly)

Kirkpatrick (Stanton)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

Meng (Jeffries)

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Moulton (Norcross)

Napolitano (Correa)

Ocasio-Cortez (Pressley)

Payne (Pallone)

Porter (Wexton)

Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))

Rogers (KY) (Fleischmann)

Rush (Underwood)

Ryan (Kildee)

Sires (Pallone)

Thompson (CA) (Speier)

Wasserman Schultz (Soto)

Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Madam Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 33.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 284.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Babin (Nehls)

Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)

Carter (TX) (Calvert)

DeFazio (Brown)

DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))

Escobar (Garcia (TX))

Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))

Fulcher (Johnson (OH))

Grijalva (Garcia (IL))

Higgins (NY) (Tonko)

Issa (Calvert)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Kim (NJ) (Underwood)

Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))

Latta (Walberg)

Lawson (FL) (Evans)

McEachin (Wexton)

McHenry (Banks)

Meng (Jeffries)

Morelle (Tonko)

Napolitano (Correa)

Payne (Wasserman Schultz)

Porter (Wexton)

Reschenthaler (Meuser)

Rice (SC) (Timmons)

Rush (Underwood)

Ryan (Kildee)

Sewell (Cicilline)

Stanton (Levin (CA))

Stefanik (Miller-Meeks)

Strickland (Torres (NY))

Swalwell (Veasey)

Vela (Correa)

Wagner (Walorski)

Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Amendment No. 41 Offered by Ms. Jacobs of California

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, around the world, America and American personnel are being attacked in their homes, in hotels, and even on public streets. For most, it starts with what seems like a loud noise that is followed by pain or a sense of pressure in the head. Many are left with chronic damage, including hearing loss, vertigo, cognitive and motor impairment, severe headaches, and inability to sleep.

In the words of a recent press report, our diplomats are suffering a ``concussion without a concussion.''

The Senate-passed bill before us today provides important authority to assist these brain injury victims, and it deserves our unanimous support. But we all must do more.

Unfortunately, these attacks have continued and spread. First, it started in Havana in late 2016 and spread to China in 2017. Two months ago, press reports described more than 130 possible cases all over the world, including right here in Washington, D.C. Just last week, two dozen new cases among U.S. personnel in Vienna were revealed. Simply put, this is kind of scary stuff.

The people who serve our Nation overseas are generally worried for themselves and their families, and they need to know that we have their backs. When the prior administration pulled our personnel out of Havana 4 years ago, they said: ``Numerous Embassy Havana employees have been targeted in specific attacks. These employees have suffered significant injuries as a consequence of these attacks.''

In contrast, President Biden has refused to call these what they are, attacks on U.S. personnel. Secretary of State Tony Blinken publicly said perhaps no one is responsible for causing these injuries.

I will tell you, from my briefings and briefings in another annex, that is absolutely incorrect. We may not be able to fill in all the blanks yet, but we know too much to dismiss these attacks as unexplained health incidents.

Four years ago, medical experts convened by the State Department agreed victims were likely dealing with brain trauma from a nonnatural source, and the evidence has only grown more conclusive since then. Last year, the National Academy of Sciences said that directed, pulsed radio frequency energy is most likely the cause. According to the NAS, the situation raises grave concerns about bad actors who may have weapons.

While we must assist victims with today's bill, we must do more. We must call these heinous attacks what they are. They are attacks, and the people attacking us need to know the consequences will be severe when we find out who they are and when we get the attribution. Otherwise, we aren't doing what we can do to deter future attacks. The men and women who serve our Nation overseas deserve no less.

I have prepared a bill to do just that, which I will be introducing this week.

I thank Chairman Meeks and our Intelligence Committee colleagues for their bipartisan work on the HAVANA Act, which I strongly support.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the coauthor of the House version of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I thank the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the ranking member, Mr. Nunes, for their strong support of this bill. It is very important.

I will be introducing a bill next week on this, and I hope to work with the House Intelligence Committee on that as well.

I am very concerned the administration may be planning to send U.S. personnel back to our Havana Embassy. I just got off of a big rally across the street from the White House with a lot of Cubans. They are searching for freedom and democracy over tyranny, oppression, and communism.

But our personnel, we can't send them back until we can say who or what caused these brain injuries that prompted the Trump administration to pull our people out of there for their own safety in 2017.

Over these last few weeks, the world has watched Cuba's brutal police state in action. The Venezuelan military is there as well, silencing people just for exercising freedom of speech, which they don't have under a communist dictatorship.

The same surveillance system that tracks dissidents and censors the internet has been unwilling to share necessary information about these attacks against Americans. I have no doubt that Cuban intelligence is involved in this.

If the administration sends U.S. personnel back to Havana without holding the regime accountable, all American diplomats are at risk.

Again, I support this bipartisan HAVANA Act. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I think these men and women, both State Department diplomats and our intelligence officers, deserve better from our Nation. They need to receive the proper care that they deserve.

Again, I thank Chairman Meeks and the Intelligence Committee, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying: No man left behind; no woman left behind. That is the commitment and that is a promise that we made to the interpreters, to our Afghan partners, that we would not leave them behind in the dust to be slaughtered by the Taliban. They have a bull's-eye on their back. I have talked to them. I have talked to our Special Forces whom they protected in this 20-year war. They will be killed if we don't get them out of there.

Our Defense Department is on a fast track. That entire country--the Taliban is on the offensive--is likely going to fall to the Taliban. The decision to withdraw completely has been made, but we have to be prepared for the aftermath. A refugee crisis and humanitarian crisis will occur. The women in Afghanistan will be tortured and will not be educated. We had a school of 200 women--girls--that were blown up. Little girls were blown up. That, Mr. Speaker, is the Taliban. That will be the same fate for our Afghan partners if we don't get them out of there now.

They have 700 now coming to Fort Lee in Virginia. I urge the administration to get the rest of them. There are 9,000 interpreters, probably 20,000 total when it comes to our Afghan partners. I ask the President to please get them out before they are killed by the Taliban.

Our ISR, or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, capability is wiped out. The Bagram air base fell to the Afghans in a very sloppy transition, and the Taliban is going to take that over, too. Now we can't see what China, Russia, and Iran are doing. We can't see what ISIS and al-Qaida are doing. We are going dark, Mr. Speaker, because we can't see anything on the ground.

But I can tell you this: The moral obligation we have to save those whom we promised we would protect has to be fulfilled, and that is precisely what this bill does, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Judiciary Committee for bringing this forward.

Madam Speaker, I missed votes due to circumstances beyond my control.

Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 197.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman for his leadership bringing this very timely bill to the floor. I want to thank Mr. Connolly for his leadership, and Mr. Chabot, who, I think, is trying to get here as well.

COVID-19 could end up, at the end of the day, costing the global economy upwards of $10 trillion. Of course, the full impact of viruses like COVID-19 is not just measured in economic disruption around the world, but also in the millions of lives that have been lost, somewhere upwards of four million people.

COVID-19 has proven viruses know no borders, as the chairman said. It is imperative the United States work to prevent future pandemics and be prepared to respond to diseases with pandemic potential.

So, again, I want to thank my colleagues who have been involved in this for introducing the Global Health Security Act and for their work to address this important issue.

This bill ensures a whole-of-government approach to prepare for and, hopefully, prevent future pandemics. It also establishes a new multilateral fund that will ensure all countries have access to the necessary resources to prevent and respond to future outbreaks.

Our committee has a history of working together to achieve bipartisan success, but particularly on legislation related to global health. It is not Republican or Democrat. This is an American issue. It is also a human issue and an international issue.

The Global Health Security Act is just yet another example of this great bipartisan work that we do and that makes me so proud to be a Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very timely bill. We have seen utter devastation, in terms of human lives, and the economy being impacted by this.

We need to ensure, Mr. Speaker, this never happens again. There will be another COVID-like virus that will be a variant. We need to work with the global community to ensure this never happens again.

We also need to find out the origins of COVID-19, how this happened in the first place. Not for revenge, but to find out how it happened so we can stop it from ever happening again.

I give my strong support to this important legislation. The timing couldn't be more relevant and appropriate. I thank Mr. Connolly for his leadership and the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman for working with me to bring this to the floor. We passed this the last Congress, and I hope the Senate will pay attention, as this is a very important issue.

In the last year alone, ISIS- and al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist attacks in the Sahel have more than doubled, killing over 4,000 people.

Just two weeks ago, at least 130 civilians were killed in Burkina Faso in an attack reportedly carried out by child soldiers. This was the worst attack in that country in years.

As we speak, ISIS and al-Qaida affiliates are growing in strength, they are increasing in size, they are becoming more violent, and they are pushing further south into coastal West Africa. Innocent civilians are paying the price.

A military solution alone will not stabilize the Sahel. Mali has experienced two coups in a year. This is unacceptable and underscores the importance of U.S. engagement, along with our partners, to address governance challenges in the region.

Without adequate attention to the root causes of extremism, violence, and community grievances, we will never meaningfully address security challenges in the Sahel.

I want to thank my colleague, Representative Keating, for his support of this legislation as well as the chairman. This bill will pass again. It is time for the Senate to pass it and make it into law.

This bill mandates the State Department, the Defense Department, and USAID to coordinate their efforts in the region, very similar to the Global Fragility Act we passed and signed into law.

This will help balance our diplomatic, defense, and development efforts to combat instability and terrorist activity in the Sahel.

The program also works with countries such as Chad, Burkina Faso, Niger, and Nigeria to build their capacity to conduct counterterrorism operations, prevent the spread of violent extremism, and strengthen the rule of law.

We have learned firsthand that terrorists left unchecked and allowed to exploit safe havens will pose great threats to the United States' national security interest.

The situation in the region is dire, and we cannot afford to squander critical taxpayer resources, if they are not achieving results. This really provides for congressional oversight as well of the State Department and the Department of Defense, in terms of how they are monitoring this important program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, again, and Representative

Keating for their work. As we have seen around the world, COVID-19 has made an already dire situation worse in this region.

As humanitarian needs are rising, forced displacement has increased and local communities are becoming more vulnerable.

In June, the U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations testified to the U.N. Security Council that terrorist groups are trying to capitalize on the pandemic to undermine and destabilize governments in the Sahel.

This cannot wait. I urge the administration to work with international partners to increase our engagement in the region. It is imperative we address the underlying drivers of extremism in order to truly combat rising terrorist activities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me first say I support this bill to repeal the 1991 Authorization for Use of Military Force for the first Gulf war. That law provided authority to use our military to enforce specific United Nations resolutions opposing Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

With the success of Operation Desert Storm, the Iraqi troops were expelled from Kuwait, and combat operations concluded in early 1991, more than 30 years ago.

The specific point of this law was accomplished. Therefore, there is no reason to leave it on the books.

It is, in that sense, very different from the 2002 Iraq AUMF we voted on before. That authority has been used consistently since its enactment to address terrorist threats in and emanating from Iraq and was most recently used--not that authority--but we saw a strike from the President against Shia militia proxies in Iraq and Syria. Those threats continue to this day. Unfortunately, not all can be targeted using the 2001 AUMF.

Real war powers reform means consulting with our military commanders and intelligence experts. It means updating Article I authorities so the President can use them to address the deadly terrorists who threaten Americans today.

It does not mean repealing old AUMFs without replacing them, although for this one, we don't need to. It does not mean telling the President just to rely on Article II powers when there is no consensus about their reach.

This law, which is tied to U.N. resolutions about the 1990 invasion of Kuwait, legally cannot be used to launch new military engagements in the 21st century.

I support this repeal. I thank Ms. Spanberger for bringing this. This is an example of how we can work together to clean up these old AUMFs and hopefully move forward with an updated AUMF.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger) for bringing this repeal. It is a real step forward. I also want to thank her for her service in the intelligence community over the years, protecting this Nation from the threats that we face. I also want to thank the chairman for really exercising great leadership on this issue.

I don't know the fate of the 2002 AUMF in the Senate, but I can tell you this one, it should sail. It is a very historic moment because it could be the first time in my memory that the Congress has finally reasserted its Article I authority and cleaned up very outdated, old AUMFs.

I see this as a very positive day, working together as Republicans and Democrats on reasserting our congressional authorities, reasserting the fact that, under the Constitution, it is the Congress that has the power to declare war, not the President of the United States.

This committee addresses nothing more grave than issues of war and peace. I think this is, again, a very historic opportunity.

I know, yesterday, the President did attack Shia proxies in Iraq and Syria. I hope I can work with the chairman on updating the 2002 and 2001 AUMFs so we can repeal the 2001 and update it to what are the modern threats that we face. After all, they are over 28 years old. Many serving may not have even been born at the time those were passed by Congress.

It is refreshing to see this kind of leadership from the chairman coming out of this committee. I applaud him, commend him. I commend the gentlewoman from Virginia for bringing this measure forward. I look forward to it being passed by the Senate and cleaning up, as we say, the housekeeping on the books. I also look forward to exercising our authorities moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I thank the chairman for, again, exercising our Article I constitutional responsibilities. That is what leadership is all about, and this one is very bipartisan, and again, I think historic. Because in my memory we have never done this before successfully.

I also thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer) for introducing this bill to repeal an aging AUMF that has never been used in the 64 years since it was enacted.

Now, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't even born when this AUMF was enacted. Just barely, though. I was born not long after that. But that is amazing as I stand here at almost 60 years old. That law gave the President authority to ``use Armed Forces to assist any Middle East nation requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism.''

This unused relic of the Cold War should not be left on the books or on the shelf for a creative President to dust off and put to unexpected use. So I think we all agree, if a President was to commit U.S. troops to new hostilities in the Middle East, he or she should come to the Congress for authorization.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason I support this repeal, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, a man who has dedicated quite a bit of time to this issue, and I would say is one of the leaders in the House on Authorizations for Use of Military Force and the War Powers Act and reasserting Congress' role.

Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer), the author of this repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, while the chairman was a toddler when this was enacted, I still was not born. I want to make that point. That is how old this thing is. And it is time. It is great to exercise our constitutional responsibilities and repeal these outdated AUMFs so that they can never be manipulated or exploited by a future President.

Again, I view this as a historic moment that Congress and this committee are exercising its powers as the Founding Fathers had wanted us to.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of this, Mr. Meijer, I thank the chairman for his leadership, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, Chairman Meeks. We work well together. When we disagree, we do it civilly, and I think that is the way this body should operate. But I do disagree on this one.

I have said many times before that war should not be on autopilot. I do think this is an outdated AUMF, and I do believe that Congress needs to reclaim its war powers under Article I of the Constitution.

I also share the desire to repeal the 2002 AUMF, as well as the 2001 AUMF, but that must be part of a serious process to provide clear, updated authorities against the terrorists who still plot to kill Americans at home and abroad. I still hope to work toward that end with my respected friend, Chairman Meeks, but a repeal and replacement should be simultaneous.

It is confusing to me that we are jamming through a standalone repeal without basic due diligence; without consulting the State Department, the Defense Department, or the intelligence community; without consulting the Government of Iraq and our coalition partners and allies.

In the 3 months since I made that complaint at our markup, the majority still has not scheduled a single briefing. This, in my judgment, is not a serious legislative process for the most serious issues that we face, and that is war and peace.

This feels like yet another political effort to undo one of President Trump's boldest counterterrorism successes: using the 2002 AUMF to remove Qasem Soleimani from the battlefield.

Soleimani was Iran's mastermind of terror for decades. He was responsible for the death of more than 600 Americans and wounded thousands more. He orchestrated the attack on our Baghdad Embassy. He plotted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador on American soil here in D.C. He oversaw Iran's support for Assad, who killed hundreds of thousands in Syria. In short, America and the world are much safer with Qasem Soleimani gone.

While the 2002 AUMF was largely about Saddam Hussein, it also clearly

addressed the terrorist threats in and emanating from Iraq. All prior administrations, Republican and Democrat, have used it for that purpose.

Today, the biggest threat in Iraq is not Saddam Hussein. We can all recognize that. But it is the Iran-sponsored terrorist groups attacking our diplomats, our soldiers, our embassy, and our citizens. They cannot be targeted using the 2001 AUMF because they are not associated with the forces of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or ISIS, but they can be targeted using the 2002 AUMF, as the prior administration did to take out Soleimani, consistent with longstanding practice.

Last year, the Trump administration ``strongly opposed'' repeal, saying it would ``terminate a critical legal authority'' and undermine our defense ``against ongoing threats from Iran and Iranian-sponsored proxies.''

The Biden administration now claims that it does not need the 2002 AUMF for current operations because it has Article II authority to use force without congressional authorization.

Is that what we are going to do now, is yield to the President's Article II authority without any congressional authorization?

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what this repeal does. It takes our authority, our Article I authorities, away. We are repealing our Article I authority and yielding it to the President of the United States.

Telling the President to rely solely on Article II, in my judgment, is a big step backward from the war powers reform and reasserting Congress' Article I powers.

It is also inconsistent with the War Powers Resolution. That law says that the President's Article II powers are limited to responding to an attack on the territory or Armed Forces of the United States. It does not cover American civilians in a foreign country, such as our contractors, our diplomats, and our embassy, who are under attack, as I speak, in Iraq.

We should not encourage any President to go it alone without Article I congressional authorization.

Finally, today's vote is not happening in a vacuum. This rushed, standalone repeal, without any consultation with the Department of Defense, the Secretary of State, or the intelligence community, as Mr. Mast has consistently talked about, sends a dangerous message of disengagement that could destabilize Iraq, embolden Iran, which it will, and strengthen al-Qaida and ISIS in the region.

We would avoid such dangers by taking up a repeal and a replacement simultaneously. I think both sides of the aisle agree, we need to update this AUMF, and we need to reform it to the modern-day threats in the region. Saddam Hussein is no longer the threat.

Real AUMF reform requires Congress and the administration to work together. The chairman has committed to doing this, and I appreciate and trust him. We work well together, but we have to do this, to work together with the administration to replace this aging AUMF with updated authorities needed to keep Americans safe from today's terrorist threats, an updated AUMF that reflects the modern-day threats in the region.

Again, I look forward to working together with Chairman Meeks and our colleagues on this if we are going to be serious about war powers reform. But this bill is not it. This bill is not responsible. We are not doing this the right way. If we are going to repeal it, let's update the AUMF to modern-day needs and reform it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just like to comment that to me it is very interesting, the timing of the gentlewoman from California's repeal. It happened after President Trump had an air strike to take out Soleimani in Iraq, at exactly the same time. He had authority to do so under the 2002 AUMF and Article II under the Constitution.

What is interesting about now, the other side of the aisle was upset when President Biden struck the Shia proxies in Syria, and that is when we saw this bill resurrect itself again in this Congress. Very interesting timing.

What I object to is that now we are abdicating our responsibility by giving the President Article II authorities alone without any authorization of use of military force from the Congress. They talk a lot about Article I on the other side, but aren't we abdicating our Article I responsibility?

I am all for updating this thing, but to completely do away with it and just give this President Article II authorities to do whatever he wants without any congressional review, in my judgment, is a wrong step forward.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just clarify again. This bill was filed last Congress after President Trump took out the mastermind of terror for two decades in the Middle East, Qasem Soleimani, to challenge his authority to take out one of the biggest

threats to the region and to our American soldiers, 600 of whom were killed and thousands wounded.

That is the genesis for this legislation, and I think that is important to note. If we do away with this without replacing it, we abdicate our Article I authorities in an absolute manner to the executive branch under Article II.

I think that it is important for anyone watching this debate to understand what we are doing here today.

Madam Speaker, with that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), a combat veteran, a distinguished servicemember, and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment, once again, that repealing this Authorization for Use of Military Force, which has been used in the past to take out Soleimani and other very bad actors, and not replacing it does not uphold our Article I responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, what we are doing is ceding our authority under the Constitution to the executive branch and saying: Oh, Article II, the President has unlimited discretion under Article II to do whatever the hell he wants to do.

That is not what this Congress should be doing. We need to replace this with an updated AUMF that reflects the threats in the region, the current threats, which are Iran and the proxies of Iran that have hit our embassy, have killed our soldiers, and are attacking our diplomats in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a point of clarification to the chairman. I am not talking about a declaration of war against Iran. What we are talking about is what is the current threat in Iraq. Today, it is proxies, the Shia proxies of Iran in Iraq.

The reason why President Biden hit them in Syria, it is the authorities that President Trump used to take out Soleimani in Iraq, not in Iran. Soleimani, ``The Butcher'', the mastermind of terror for two decades, killing 600 American soldiers and wounding thousands more.

I am all for updating this thing, but to replace this and throw it out with not anything to protect our men and women who are in Iraq today, including the diplomats, is highly irresponsible, it is reckless, and it is dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the lead Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We need to exercise our Article I constitutional responsibilities and update this outdated AUMF. That is precisely what we are arguing today. We are not saying that we should replace this, but we shouldn't repeal without an updated AUMF that reflects the modern-day threats.

As I close later, I will talk about the chairman and I working on that effort. That is what this body should be doing, because otherwise, if we repeal this, we are again ceding our Article I responsibilities to the executive, and just giving him unlimited Article II powers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think I laid out our arguments, and I think it is irresponsible to repeal this authority, which still is used to protect our embassy diplomats and soldiers in Iraq against the Shia proxies of Iran.

I am committed to work with the chairman to update this outdated AUMF. And I think if there is any agreement in this Chamber, and also on both sides of the aisle, it is that we need to modernize it to the modern-day threats.

And as I read from the President's Statement of Administration Policy, the President says: I am committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats.

I agree with the President of the United States, and I think the chairman does as well. We have to do this, and it is not going to be easy, but it is time to update this outdated AUMF.

I would prefer to have repealed and replaced it with our updated AUMF. But as Brian Mast, a heroic veteran who lost his legs in battle, said, We cannot just repeal this and talk about updating when we haven't even talked to the Department of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the intelligence community about what is the modern-day threat, and what we need to do in Congress to exercise our Article I responsibilities that we have a responsibility to do, and not just cede everything to the executive branch under Article II.

The argument is made, well, this could be done under Article II. Well, that is probably true. But are we not abdicating our responsibility and ceding it to the executive branch by doing this? I would argue that we are.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close with the motion to recommit.

If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Foreign Affairs to consider my amendment to H.R. 256. It responds to the serious escalation by Hamas against Israel that we saw in May.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, Hamas launched over 4,000 rockets at our closest allies in the Middle East. This was a stark reminder of the dangerous threats that Israel faces from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other terrorist organizations.

For this reason, our MTR makes sure that the United States can quickly react to Israel's security needs in the event of future attacks.

If enacted, this language would establish contingency plans to provide Israel with defense articles such as munitions, ISR technology, aircraft, and related services. It would also create a waiver to expedite arms transfers if Israel is under threat of military attack.

This language passed the House last Congress with broad bipartisan support, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it today.

I fear that the 2002 AUMF repeal we are considering today without a replacement may embolden our adversaries, especially Iran--the largest state sponsor of terror in the world--and its proxies by signaling that we are retreating from the Middle East.

Our MTR is intended to send a strong message that this is absolutely false. It will also send a message that passage will demonstrate our ironclad support for Israel and all our allies in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my good friend and colleague, Chairman Meeks, for his strong bipartisan approach on this measure to authorize the State Department. As he mentioned, it has been 20 years since Congress has authorized the State Department. This is our obligation under Article I of the Constitution, and for 10 Congresses, we have failed in that mission.

I am very proud today that, working with the chairman, we are going to get this thing done and send it over to the Senate. 2002 was the last time. In the nearly 20 years since that authority lapsed, we have seen too many taxpayer dollars wasted on inefficient hirings and procurements, an expanding bureaucracy, and an outdated IT system that left us vulnerable to cyberattacks from our adversaries.

It is a fundamental duty of the Foreign Affairs Committee to pass an annual authorization bill, just like we pass a national defense authorization bill. This is necessary to fulfill our constitutional oversight responsibilities and our obligation to be good stewards of the people's money.

For these reasons I am proud, again, of this bipartisan effort our committee has produced, as we often do. It will address numerous longstanding difficulties. It will fortify the Department and our diplomats with the tools needed to fulfill their missions to promote America overseas and enhance our security abroad.

Among other important reforms, the bill before us will modernize the State Department workforce, eliminate outdated reports, bolster embassy and information security, strengthen the State Department's diplomacy and anticorruption efforts, and reassert the Article I prerogatives of the United States Congress.

As the United States faces growing challenges around the world, we need our Secretary and diplomats to know that Congress supports them, and that is precisely what this bill does.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank, again, Chairman Meeks, for his great leadership and his team and staff for working with mine. This type of collaboration has been a hallmark of our work on this committee, and I know that it will continue to be so.

Again, this bill having lapsed for nearly 20 years, it is long overdue. This bill deserves our unanimous support.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), an esteemed member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I think this is a momentous day for the Congress. I want to thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Meeks, for his great leadership in bringing this long-overdue authorization bill to the floor.

I also want to thank former chairman Eliot Engel, who I worked with very closely to get an authorization bill passed out of the House, just to see it fail in the Senate. I hope the Senate will not allow that to happen again. This is really desperately needed. It is a momentous day for the House. It is critical. It is bipartisan. It reclaims our constitutional prerogatives of the Congress and the full oversight role of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I think it demands our unanimous support.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, let me thank the Speaker for coming down on the floor to give her personal remarks. I know she has a busy schedule, but this really honors and shows her commitment to human rights in Hong Kong and all around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join the chairman in leading this measure to condemn the egregious violations of Hong Kong's freedoms. The Chinese Communist Party's relentless oppression of the people of Hong Kong is not a Republican or Democratic issue. We are united as Americans in standing with Hong Kongers.

Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement has inspired people around the world to fight for liberty over tyranny. But in June of last year, the Chinese Communist Party used its sham legislature to enforce a dystopian national security law on Hong Kong. This law criminalizes basic civil liberties, it violated China's treaty commitments, it destroyed the ``one country, two systems'' model of autonomy, and it inserted the CCP's police state into Hong Kong to crush dissent.

Since it passed, the CCP has purged pro-democracy lawmakers from the government while arresting the CCP's political enemies.

Unfortunately, the CCP's human rights abuses in Hong Kong are far from over. Chairman Meeks' resolution continues our bipartisan work to call out the CCP's abuses and to stand with the people of Hong Kong, and I urge my colleagues' support for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and has been a champion for human rights more than most people have been in this Congress maybe combined.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer), who is a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, we no longer see American flags waving over thousands of peaceful protesters in the streets of Hong Kong. Displaying our symbol of liberty has become a criminal act punishable by life in prison. But even though the freedom-loving people of Hong Kong can no longer publicly ask for our support, we still hear these pleas. Congress hears them, the American people hear them, and it is now

more important than ever that we continue to stand with the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Meeks for bringing this resolution which I was proud to join as a lead cosponsor, and I yield back the balance of my time.